Daz Studio 5 development update

Leana

inquire said:

Leana said:

spaceray2005_e908957707 said:

Great news that there is a Daz Studio 5 going to be released

It is still wait to see how the Daz Studio 4 products, plugins and tool are going to be compatible with this new version 5

As mentioned in the first post, plugins won't be, as the SDK is not backwards compatible (which is why that version will be 5.x and not another 4.x). They will at minimum need to be recompiled with the new SDK, some might require more substantial changes. Which means that any plugin whose creator is not active anymore (like GenX2, whose creator passed away years ago) or is not willing to update it in case it requires more work, won't work at all in DS5.

 

I don't understand coding, so maybe someone can explain this simply to me. Can't the code of something like GenX2 be viewed and analyzed, so that a new version could be made? I'm not suggesting that anyone's intellectual property be stolen. The artist or his or her heirs could be offered compensation if DAZ or another artist wanted to take up the task of revising and updating software. But I've read things such as "No one knows how she did it." So, again, is it not possible to analyze the code and understand this? (Again, I'm not focusing on GenX2; that's just an example.)

It's possible to take over someone else's code to analyze and edit it, yes. But that assumes you actually have access to the source code itself, not just the compiled version of the plugin or encrypted version of a script that is distributed as a product.

The heirs of a PA who passed away may not have access to the source code.

ArtAngel

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

etaktrash_d29ae59121

 

I am running 10.15.7 and DIM is working fine for me.... How did you try to verify the software?


 

All the ways you can. Allowing trusted developers, right-clicking to open the installer, going to Preferences and trying to allow it from there--which didn't work because it dind't even show up (yes, I did it within the hour). Without totally disabling the firewall on a brand new machine, I don't seem able to let it in. and my last attempt to reinstall DIM last night was folllowed by DS just stopping rendering entirely. I'd changed absolutely nothing, not even the camera angle since the last time I loaded that file. A foolish atempt to reinstall DS led to it disapparing completely.

So now I've got nothing at all. Roll on DS5... I hope!

Mustakettu85

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

3Don

I'm getting lost...

kyoto kid

ArtAngel said:

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

...more and more I've been feeling the same.  Also have heavy investment in plugins and scripts as well. Without plugins for my work, Daz would be pretty limited. 

Havos

Quite a lot of scripts and plug-in's can be run in DS 4.x and then the results used in scenes developed in DS 5. This includes things like Gen X, other character converters, clothing converters etc. 

The main two plug-ins I would like to see work in DS 5 are the Ultrascenery accelerator and mesh grabber. At least for the former, the developer has said it will be updated.

For scripts I would like to see Scene Optimizer and Visual Menus updated.

Sven Dullah

kyoto kid said:

ArtAngel said:

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

...more and more I've been feeling the same.  Also have heavy investment in plugins and scripts as well. Without plugins for my work, Daz would be pretty limited. 

One of the reasons I'm still on 4.9 with no intention to upgrade...unless DAZ upgrades 3DL.

Richard Haseltine

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

wsterdan

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

No need to apologize, I think one or two of the younger posters might not have fully understood what "compiled" meant, I think the extra explanation might have helped them. I think we older members start to assume what *we* undrestand is "common knowledge" for *our* generation might not be all that common for other generations, with all their FaceTweets, TicketyToks and TwitterBooks. 

-- Walt Sterdan 

Paintbox

ArtAngel said:

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

You can have DS4 running besides DS5, so all plugins will definitely keep working in 4.

algovincian

I hope that the powers that be will consider a file naming convention that includes version numbers, as opposed to re-using the same filename when assets are updated. Otherwise, if names are re-used, updating an asset for DS5 will mean that any subsequent DLs of that asset by a DS4 user will be useless, know what I'm sayin?

- Greg

Seven193

ArtAngel said:

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

Better save a copy of your old DS installer then, as these things tend to disappear quickly without notice.

AlmightyQUEST

While I would also highly recommend backing up your installers, I still have DAZ Studio 2 available to download, much less 3. Historically these have not disappeared at all once they get to the last official version of a main number. Things could change, but if their plan is to do what they have done before, they have a good track record.

Leana

Seven193 said:

ArtAngel said:

I like my plug-ins. I paid good money for them. If upgrading kills them . . .  count me out.

Better save a copy of your old DS installer then, as these things tend to disappear quickly without notice.

The latest version of DS4 and its plugin will remain available in your product library If you're using an older version then yes, a backup would be a good idea.

Leana

AlmightyQUEST said:

if their plan is to do what they have done before

It is. As mentioned in first post of the thread, "Anyone who has Daz Studio 4 in their account will be able to keep it. You'll be able to continue to download and use it for the foreseeable future."

AllenArt

I know I plan on creating an entire new directory for everything once DS5 comes. Not going to mix the two. At that point I will switch IM over to the new directory and only switch back in case there is an update to a DS4x product. 

inquire

wsterdan said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

No need to apologize, I think one or two of the younger posters might not have fully understood what "compiled" meant, I think the extra explanation might have helped them. I think we older members start to assume what *we* undrestand is "common knowledge" for *our* generation might not be all that common for other generations, with all their FaceTweets, TicketyToks and TwitterBooks. 

-- Walt Sterdan 

 I did not understand what compiled meant. Turned into machine code helped me, so thank you, Richard. Again, here's Leana's comment. From that, I gather that the product that is distributed when someone buys it is not the same as the source code itself. It's just a compiled version or an encrypted version. Is that correct? I was wondering why you couldn't just look at the distributed product and figure out how the product does its thing.  Leana wrote: It's possible to take over someone else's code to analyze and edit it, yes. But that assumes you actually have access to the source code itself, not just the compiled version of the plugin or encrypted version of a script that is distributed as a product.

 

nicstt

inquire said:

Leana said:

spaceray2005_e908957707 said:

Great news that there is a Daz Studio 5 going to be released

It is still wait to see how the Daz Studio 4 products, plugins and tool are going to be compatible with this new version 5

As mentioned in the first post, plugins won't be, as the SDK is not backwards compatible (which is why that version will be 5.x and not another 4.x). They will at minimum need to be recompiled with the new SDK, some might require more substantial changes. Which means that any plugin whose creator is not active anymore (like GenX2, whose creator passed away years ago) or is not willing to update it in case it requires more work, won't work at all in DS5.

 

I don't understand coding, so maybe someone can explain this simply to me. Can't the code of something like GenX2 be viewed and analyzed, so that a new version could be made? I'm not suggesting that anyone's intellectual property be stolen. The artist or his or her heirs could be offered compensation if DAZ or another artist wanted to take up the task of revising and updating software. But I've read things such as "No one knows how she did it." So, again, is it not possible to analyze the code and understand this? (Again, I'm not focusing on GenX2; that's just an example.)

A decompiler can be used, however without permission this may be illegal.

kyoto kid

AlmightyQUEST said:

While I would also highly recommend backing up your installers, I still have DAZ Studio 2 available to download, much less 3. Historically these have not disappeared at all once they get to the last official version of a main number. Things could change, but if their plan is to do what they have done before, they have a good track record.

..I still have the installer for 1.8 as well as that version installed just for "memory lane's " sake. 

Havos

nicstt said:

inquire said:

Leana said:

spaceray2005_e908957707 said:

Great news that there is a Daz Studio 5 going to be released

It is still wait to see how the Daz Studio 4 products, plugins and tool are going to be compatible with this new version 5

As mentioned in the first post, plugins won't be, as the SDK is not backwards compatible (which is why that version will be 5.x and not another 4.x). They will at minimum need to be recompiled with the new SDK, some might require more substantial changes. Which means that any plugin whose creator is not active anymore (like GenX2, whose creator passed away years ago) or is not willing to update it in case it requires more work, won't work at all in DS5.

 

I don't understand coding, so maybe someone can explain this simply to me. Can't the code of something like GenX2 be viewed and analyzed, so that a new version could be made? I'm not suggesting that anyone's intellectual property be stolen. The artist or his or her heirs could be offered compensation if DAZ or another artist wanted to take up the task of revising and updating software. But I've read things such as "No one knows how she did it." So, again, is it not possible to analyze the code and understand this? (Again, I'm not focusing on GenX2; that's just an example.)

A decompiler can be used, however without permission this may be illegal.

Regardless of the legal issues, decompiled code is very difficult to read and understand, if you are not the original coder. Not only are all the comments stripped out, but sometimes procedure, variable and class names are messed up making the code tricky to decipher.

inquire

Ah, I see. I now understand (I think) what happened with GradeBookPlus. The product suffered a forced takeover. The upgrade did some tricky things. I phoned in and even talked to the then head guy in charge. He asked, once or twice, "Yeah, why does it do that?" Then I learned that the new people had not been given the code because those who lost their jobs were angry about that. But I didn't understand why he couldn't just analyze the code.

wsterdan

inquire said:

wsterdan said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

No need to apologize, I think one or two of the younger posters might not have fully understood what "compiled" meant, I think the extra explanation might have helped them. I think we older members start to assume what *we* undrestand is "common knowledge" for *our* generation might not be all that common for other generations, with all their FaceTweets, TicketyToks and TwitterBooks. 

-- Walt Sterdan 

 I did not understand what compiled meant. Turned into machine code helped me, so thank you, Richard. Again, here's Leana's comment. From that, I gather that the product that is distributed when someone buys it is not the same as the source code itself. It's just a compiled version or an encrypted version. Is that correct? I was wondering why you couldn't just look at the distributed product and figure out how the product does its thing.  Leana wrote: It's possible to take over someone else's code to analyze and edit it, yes. But that assumes you actually have access to the source code itself, not just the compiled version of the plugin or encrypted version of a script that is distributed as a product.

Soundls like you've got it. As nicstt and Havos say,, you can use another program to decompile it, an attempt to decipher the compiled code back to something editable, but its output can be difficult to work with depending on the source language and the compiler used, and a clever programmer will often find it easier to just write their own plug-in or short script from scratch, and it does avoid most legal issues.

-- Walt Sterdan 

marble

wsterdan said:

inquire said:

wsterdan said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

No need to apologize, I think one or two of the younger posters might not have fully understood what "compiled" meant, I think the extra explanation might have helped them. I think we older members start to assume what *we* undrestand is "common knowledge" for *our* generation might not be all that common for other generations, with all their FaceTweets, TicketyToks and TwitterBooks. 

-- Walt Sterdan 

 I did not understand what compiled meant. Turned into machine code helped me, so thank you, Richard. Again, here's Leana's comment. From that, I gather that the product that is distributed when someone buys it is not the same as the source code itself. It's just a compiled version or an encrypted version. Is that correct? I was wondering why you couldn't just look at the distributed product and figure out how the product does its thing.  Leana wrote: It's possible to take over someone else's code to analyze and edit it, yes. But that assumes you actually have access to the source code itself, not just the compiled version of the plugin or encrypted version of a script that is distributed as a product.

Soundls like you've got it. As nicstt and Havos say,, you can use another program to decompile it, an attempt to decipher the compiled code back to something editable, but its output can be difficult to work with depending on the source language and the compiler used, and a clever programmer will often find it easier to just write their own plug-in or short script from scratch, and it does avoid most legal issues.

-- Walt Sterdan 

 

I'm a little surprised to see that "machine code" is understood while "compiled" is not, but hey, that's all by the by. Surely experienced programmers among the PA community could create entirely new plugins doing what the users need? Or are they specific to older generations of figures and thus not of interest to DAZ to promote such plugins? 

Nothing stands still, especially in the Digital World, so I guess we can expect some of our purchases to become obsolete (I have a considerable library of V4/M4/Genesis content which I never even look at these days). My approach will be to assess whether the benefits of DS5 outweigh the loss of features covered by discontinued plugins.

Richard Haseltine

marble said:

wsterdan said:

inquire said:

wsterdan said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Mustakettu85 said:

The code itself absolutely can be viewed and analysed (though it gets mighty tedious if the coder didn't use nice formatting, comments etc). But what people are trying to tell you is that it might be impossible to actually make this happen - because the rights to do anything with it belong to Ralf Sesseler's heirs (supposing he had any). Moreover, I suspect that it's not DAZ3D who compile the code but the PA (those who actually sell plugins for DS here, would you please correct me if I'm wrong). So DAZ3D may not even have the code, and Mr Sesseler's heirs might not want to go through his archives in order to locate it (supposing those archives still survive).

For a plug-in, like the GenX tools, there is no rtruly human-readable code - it's been turned into machine code. We have no idea whether the original source code is even available to the developer's heirs.

Which is exactly what I said, isn't it :) I just used the word "compiled" rather than the phrase "turned into machine code" because, well, it's shorter. And I actually thought that everyone should understand what "to compile" means in this context. Would you say it's not common knowledge?

Sorry, I'm going to pretend it was getting late when I posted that and my ability to read my native language had shut down.

No need to apologize, I think one or two of the younger posters might not have fully understood what "compiled" meant, I think the extra explanation might have helped them. I think we older members start to assume what *we* undrestand is "common knowledge" for *our* generation might not be all that common for other generations, with all their FaceTweets, TicketyToks and TwitterBooks. 

-- Walt Sterdan 

 I did not understand what compiled meant. Turned into machine code helped me, so thank you, Richard. Again, here's Leana's comment. From that, I gather that the product that is distributed when someone buys it is not the same as the source code itself. It's just a compiled version or an encrypted version. Is that correct? I was wondering why you couldn't just look at the distributed product and figure out how the product does its thing.  Leana wrote: It's possible to take over someone else's code to analyze and edit it, yes. But that assumes you actually have access to the source code itself, not just the compiled version of the plugin or encrypted version of a script that is distributed as a product.

Soundls like you've got it. As nicstt and Havos say,, you can use another program to decompile it, an attempt to decipher the compiled code back to something editable, but its output can be difficult to work with depending on the source language and the compiler used, and a clever programmer will often find it easier to just write their own plug-in or short script from scratch, and it does avoid most legal issues.

-- Walt Sterdan 

 

I'm a little surprised to see that "machine code" is understood while "compiled" is not, but hey, that's all by the by. Surely experienced programmers among the PA community could create entirely new plugins doing what the users need? Or are they specific to older generations of figures and thus not of interest to DAZ to promote such plugins? 

If someone did create an equivalent it certainly wouldn't be mde a free replacement for the original, though.

Nothing stands still, especially in the Digital World, so I guess we can expect some of our purchases to become obsolete (I have a considerable library of V4/M4/Genesis content which I never even look at these days). My approach will be to assess whether the benefits of DS5 outweigh the loss of features covered by discontinued plugins.

TheMysteryIsThePoint

Havos said:

Regardless of the legal issues, decompiled code is very difficult to read and understand, if you are not the original coder. Not only are all the comments stripped out, but sometimes procedure, variable and class names are messed up making the code tricky to decipher.

+1

Even the original source code itself, but without comments, can be a challenge.

TheMysteryIsThePoint

Richard Haseltine said:

If someone did create an equivalent it certainly wouldn't be mde a free replacement for the original, though.

Why do you say that? I can think of a few equivalents that are superior to their peers and are free.

davidtriune

so what are 20 pages of hype about? are there any new features in v5 or are we just excited about new UI?

TheMysteryIsThePoint

marble said:

I'm a little surprised to see that "machine code" is understood while "compiled" is not, but hey, that's all by the by. Surely experienced programmers among the PA community could create entirely new plugins doing what the users need? Or are they specific to older generations of figures and thus not of interest to DAZ to promote such plugins? 

What really scares me @marble, is what Daz is going to change and then not document. I just don't have it in me to take another year to reverse engineer the most basic of functions, all the while being completely ignored (as in not even a response to say "I'm too busy to help you") by all the people who could help.

I am currently having a disagreement with Richard Haseltine, but I should also remember that he is the only one that tried to help me as best he could, even as my attitude grew more and more bitter because of the unprecedented way in which I was completely disregarded.

So I say again, because it is going to be supremely important as DS5 takes hold, if we can impress upon Daz how important the documentation is, the period where plugins don't work can be abbreviated.

 

Mustakettu85

marble said:

Or are they specific to older generations of figures and thus not of interest to DAZ to promote such plugins? 

...I have a considerable library of V4/M4/Genesis content which I never even look at these days...

Mr Sesseler's plugin is definitely mostly aimed at those oldtimers who want to transfer morphs from Gen4 and older characters quickly and easily. I don't think that any developer currently active would even think of recreating that particular functionality, given that the majority of DAZ3D customers hold attitudes similar to yours :)

Gotta say that some of that Gen4/Genesis content is still very much viable, especially for niche needs. Some is not good at all... but then, stuff being released ATM isn't all amazing high-quality either.